Justia U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court that the exercise of specific personal jurisdiction against a German corporation did not offend the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, holding that on the facts of this case the exercise of jurisdiction would not violate due process.Plaintiff, a Maine corporation, sued Defendant, a German corporation, in federal district court in Maine for trademark infringement. As a basis for personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Plaintiff said that Defendant’s nationwide contacts with the United States supported specific jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2). On prima facie review, the district court concluded that it could constitutionally exercise specific personal jurisdiction over Defendant under Rule 4(k)(2). The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff met all three requirements to establish personal jurisdiction. View "Plixer International, Inc. v. Scrutinizer GMBH" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the convictions of Akeen Ocean and Jermaine Mitchell for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine base and Ocean’s sentence of 120 months’ imprisonment with three years of supervised release, holding that there was no merit in any of Appellants’ claims of error.Specifically, the Court held (1) there was sufficient evidence to convict Ocean of the charged conspiracy; (2) the district court did not err in admitting recorded jailhouse conversations Ocean had with a girlfriend who cooperated with the government; (3) the sentencing judge did not err in calculating Ocean’s drug quantity; and (4) the district court did not err by allowing two law enforcement witnesses to testify that they believed a substance they seized was crack cocaine. View "United States v. Ocean" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court sentencing Defendant to eighty-four months’ incarceration for possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, holding that the government did not breach its plea agreement with Defendant.Pursuant to a plea agreement, Defendant pleaded guilty to charges of possessing firearms in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime and possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. After a hearing, the district court sentenced Defendant to eighty-four months of imprisonment as to Count I and twelve months as to Count II, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, arguing that the government breached the plea agreement by tacitly arguing that the agreed-upon sixty-month sentence for his weapons charge was too low. The First Circuit disagreed, holding that where the government stated its recommendation on the weapons charge without any reservation, there was no breach. View "United States v. Irizarry-Rosario" on Justia Law

The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) final decision denying his application for cancellation of removal, holding that the Court lacked jurisdiction over Petitioner’s challenges to the BIA’s decision.Petitioner, a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States illegally, filed an application for cancellation of removal pursuant to section 240A(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1229b(b)(1). Due in part to criminal charges pending against Defendant of child molestation, an immigration judge (IJ) denied Petitioner’s request. The BIA affirmed the IJ and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. The First Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review, holding that jurisdiction was lacking where Petitioner stated no colorable legal or constitutional claim. View "Rivera v. Sessions" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions for bulk-cash smuggling and currency structuring, holding that no reversible error occurred during the proceedings below.Specifically, the Court held (1) Defendant failed to demonstrate that the district court’s admission into evidence of certain statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule was prejudicial; (2) the district judge did not err in instructing the jury; (3) Defendant waived his claim that the district judge erred by not granting his motion for acquittal on the structuring count; and (4) the prosecutor did not make prejudicial comments in closing arguments or at sentencing. View "United States v. Freitas" on Justia Law

The First Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings the district court’s denial of Plaintiff’s challenge of Harvard Pilgrim Health Care’s (HPHC) denial of coverage for the cost of Plaintiff’s uncovered care at a mental health residential treatment facility, holding that the administrative record upon which the district court based its findings should have been supplemented.HPHC, Plaintiff’s insurer, deemed a portion of the time Plaintiff spent at the residential facility not medically necessary under the health care benefits plan established by the employer of Plaintiff’s parent and therefore denied coverage for that portion of the treatment. Plaintiff brought suit under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. 1001-1461. The district court affirmed on de novo review, concluding that continued residential treatment was not medically necessary for Plaintiff. The First Circuit vacated the district court’s order granting summary judgment for HPHC and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) when a district court examines the denial of ERISA benefits de novo, the court’s factual findings are reviewed only for clear error; and (2) such a deferential review cannot properly be conducted in this case on the administrative record. View "Doe v. Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, Inc." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiff’s suit against Bloomberg News and authors of an article Plaintiff claimed rendered Bloomberg liable for several common-law torts, including defamation, holding that the suit was properly dismissed for Plaintiff's failure to allege sufficient facts to make out his claims.This case concerned an online article and TV interview in which Bloomberg reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission had opened an investigation to determine whether Plaintiff, a priest and hedge fund manager, had intentionally published false material about certain public companies. The district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss, concluding (1) Plaintiff was required to plausibly allege actual malice because he was at least a limited-purpose public figure, and Plaintiff failed to do so; and (2) Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to make out a claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that Plaintiff’s complaint did not narrate a claim for relief. View "Lemelson v. Bloomberg L.P." on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the complaint filed by the Narragansett Indian Tribe against federal and Rhode Island agencies concerning a highway bridge reconstruction over historic tribal land, holding that the Tribe’s claim was not the type of claim federal courts may adjudicate.The Tribe filed suit in federal district court alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The heart of the Tribe’s claim contended that the state of Rhode Island broke a promise made to the Tribe. The district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss, concluding (1) as to the federal defendants, none of the three statutes identified in the complaint waived the federal government’s sovereign immunity as to the Tribe’s claims; and (2) as to the state defendants, the Tribe alleged no basis to support the court’s exercise of jurisdiction. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the National Historic Preservation Act does not waive the federal government’s sovereign immunity in connection with the bringing of this suit; and (2) as to the state agencies, the complaint lacked any basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. View "Narragansett Indian Tribe v. Rhode Island Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court excluding certain evidence during trial in this case alleging violations of the Fourth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. 1983, holding that Plaintiff’s grounds for attacking one set of evidentiary rulings were not advanced below and that Plaintiff’s remaining challenge was moot.On appeal, Plaintiff challenged the district court’s rulings on her motions in limine, which resulted in the exclusion of evidence concerning the procurement and validity of a search warrant, and the district court’s refusal to admit her medical bills into evidence. The First Circuit held (1) Plaintiff’s first assignment of error was predicated on legal theories and arguments that were raised for the first time on appeal and thus could not be addressed on appeal; and (2) because the medical bills were relevant only to the issue of damages and the jury found no liability, all issues regarding damages were moot. View "Campbell v. Ackerman" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the opinion of the Board of Immigration Appeal (BIA) affirming an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of Petitioner’s application seeking asylum relief, withholding of removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and protection pursuant to the Convention Against Torture Act (CAT) and ordering her removed, holding that there was no merit to Petitioner’s arguments before this Court.On appeal, Petitioner argued that the BIA erred in affirming the IJ’s finding that she did not suffer past persecution on account of being a member of a protected class, she did not have a well-founded fear of future persecution, and she was not entitled to protection under the CAT. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the BIA’s decision was well supported, and review of the record did not compel a different outcome. View "Aguilar-de Guillen v. Sessions" on Justia Law